20 Apr 09
Is the Roxana Saberi situation a case of quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur or is it a case of integer vitae scelerisque purus?
What about those who say the Saberi case illustrates that iuris ignorantia est cum ius nostrum ignoramus?
Or is this thread perhaps , on final reflection, a case of quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur?
11 May 09
Originally posted by FMFBBC headline:
Is the Roxana Saberi situation a case of quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur or is it a case of integer vitae scelerisque purus?
Iran 'to release' reporter Saberi
An Iran court has cut jailed US-Iranian reporter Roxana Saberi's sentence to two years suspended and she will be freed later on Monday, her lawyer says.
Text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/8043768.stm
All well and good. But if she was in fact a spy, and if her acquittal was simply brought on by "an international outcry" rather than the facts of the case, is this perhaps a miscarriage of justice?
11 May 09
Originally posted by FMFnobody cared about your "what if's" a month ago, why bump this thread again?
BBC headline:
[b]Iran 'to release' reporter Saberi
An Iran court has cut jailed US-Iranian reporter Roxana Saberi's sentence to two years suspended and she will be freed later on Monday, her lawyer says.
Text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/8043768.stm
All well and good. But if she was in fact a spy, and if her acquittal was ...[text shortened]... tional outcry" rather than the facts of the case, is this perhaps a miscarriage of justice?[/b]
what if she was just a reporter caught up in the insane asylum called iran
11 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamBecause she's just been released. Haven't you seen the news?
nobody cared about your "what if's" a month ago, why bump this thread again?
And my OP had absolutely nothing in it about "what ifs"! How could you possible get the wrong end of the stick like that?
11 May 09
Originally posted by FMF"All well and good. But if she was in fact a spy, and if her acquittal was simply brought on by "an international outcry" rather than the facts of the case, is this perhaps a miscarriage of justice?"
Because she's just been released. Haven't you seen the news?
And my OP had absolutely nothing in it about "what ifs"! How could you possible get the wrong end of the stick like that?
Sounds like a "what if" to me.
11 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou ask whether she got out because Iran found itself in a position of put up or shut up, or because the Iranian justice system was convinced of the reporter's uprightness and lack of wickedness.
Is the Roxana Saberi situation a case of quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur or is it a case of integer vitae scelerisque purus?
What about those who say the Saberi case illustrates that iuris ignorantia est cum ius nostrum ignoramus?
Or is this thread perhaps , on final reflection, a case of quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur?
Evidence or data insufficient ... we can but speculate.
Or perhaps it is a case where ignorance of the law shows us we or she do not know our own rights?
In Iran? A woman has rights? Iran respects "rights" in the same sense we use that word? Iran has a legal system in any sense of that term we would understand? that is, something not arbitrary and capricious in the extreme?
We don't really know.
no -- the answer is that this is all just a waste of our time, for this is merely a supercilious demonstration by a non-lawyer who wants us to mistake his cut and paste use of Latin maxims for his saying something profound or even substantively valuable.
in short, he's just having a laugh.
11 May 09
Originally posted by FMFMore likely for the Iranians, it was a case of gladiator in arena consilium capit!
Yes but you claimed there were "what ifs" in my OP a month ago. It seem you are mistaken.
Where was the "what if" in the OP, Sam?
As for you, FMF, antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem!
🙂
12 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinIndeed I was just having a laugh. And quite obviously so. Shame you had to turn it into yet another opportunity to dish out your trademark, humourless, personal abuse.
no -- the answer is that this is all just a waste of our time, for this is merely a supercilious demonstration by a non-lawyer who wants us to mistake his cut and paste use of Latin maxims for his saying something profound or even substantively valuable.
in short, he's just having a laugh.
12 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358LOL. My point exactly!
As for you, FMF, antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem!
After all, as I said in the OP, quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur!
Which roughly translates as "Using Latin maxims to seem like one is saying something profound or even substantively valuable."
A stint on the windswept crags may not be necessary if there is an international outcry over the mishandling of my case by this thread's Humour Police!
😀